Danish translation and validation of the Self-reported foot and ankle score (SEFAS) in patients with ankle related fractures.

BACKGROUND: The Self-reported Foot and Ankle Score (SEFAS) is a patient-reported outcome measure used to evaluate foot and ankle disorders. The purpose of this study was to translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate the Danish language version of the SEFAS in patients with ankle-related fractures. METHODS: Forward-backward translation, cross-cultural adaption and validation were performed. In total, 125 patients completed the SEFAS-DK and the Danish version of American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Score (AOFAS-DK) at three time points after the date of fracture. The evaluation was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) level of the SEFAS-DK total score was 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-0.96). Cronbach's alpha (CA) for the SEFAS-DK was 0.93, while the floor and ceiling effect at week 6 post-injury was 22.4%. Construct validity was correlated with the AOFAS, and >75% of the pre-defined hypotheses could be confirmed. Responsiveness was analysed using longitudinal data. The minimal clinical important change (MCIC) showed that the SEFAS-DK detects changes in physical function over time. CONCLUSION: The Danish version of the SEFAS showed overall good reliability, validity and responsiveness. SEFAS-DK can be used to evaluate physical function in patients with ankle-related fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: level II, prospective cohort study.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional outcomes and complications following external fixation or open reduction internal fixation for distal intra-articular tibial fractures: an update.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing physical function and complications following DIATF surgery with external fixation (EF) or open reduction internal fixation (ORIF). METHOD: A search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Open Grey and Orthopaedic Proceedings. Studies with a level of evidence of I-III on patients (≥ 18 years) with DIATFs operated on with either EF or ORIF were included. A total of 3814 studies were identified. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomised controlled trials and the ROBINS-I tool for nonrandomised studies were used to assess risk of bias. RESULTS: Nine studies with 478 patients, 271 ORIF and 197 EF met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up ranged from 12 to 38 months. The meta-analysis showed a higher incidence of superficial wound infections (RR = 2.94, 95% CI 1.62-5.34, p = 0.0004) and malunions (RR = 2.62, 95% CI 1.27-5.43, p = 0.009) in the EF group compared to the ORIF group. Also worse physical function was associated with the EF group. However, the overall evidence was low. CONCLUSION: This systematic review is the first to report on physical function following DIATF surgery. In general, decreased physical function was reported. The meta-analysis showed lower incidence of superficial wound infection and malunion rates in the ORIF group. Heterogeneity was low. In conclusion, this review reports lower complication rates following ORIF for DIATF. The overall evidence was limited, and therefore, the authors cannot recommend ORIF to be superior to EF treatment for DIATF. More multi-centre studies with larger sample sizes are needed to assess long-term physical function and complications following DIATF surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.

Can intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) reduce time to surgery for malleolar fractures?

BACKGROUND: Surgery of malleolar fractures are often delayed due to oedema of the ankle. The use of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) is thought to reduce oedema of the fracture site and thereby time to surgery in patients with malleolar fractures. PURPOSE: To investigate the influence of IPC on the time from admission to surgery in adult patients with internal fixated primary malleolar fractures. METHODS: February 1st 2013 IPC was introduced as a standard treatment for all patients admitted with a malleolar fracture. Data was retrieved from the hospital database 2 years prior and after the introduction date. The patients were found using ICD-10 diagnoses codes (DS825-8) in combination with NOMESCO procedure codes (KNHJ40-3, KNHJ60-3, KNHJ70-3, KNHJ80-3). One reviewer examined all the journals and classified the x-ray images by the AO classification. The primary outcome measure was time from diagnosis to surgery. RESULTS: 74 patients in the IPC cohort and 113 in the non-IPC cohort were included in the study. Time from admission to surgery was 21.9 (10.8-45.0) hours in the control group and 22.1 (8.9-41.2) hours in the IPC group. The difference is not statistically significant (p=0.420). A subgroup analysis divided the patients operated before and after 24h from admission. The median (IQR) time to surgery for patients operated before 24h was 10.9 (6.4-16.9) hours for the control group and 9.9 (5.8-20.1) hours in the IPC group (p=0.989). The median (IQR) time to surgery for patients operated after 24h was 21.5 (4.1-57.0) hours for the control group and 18.4 (7.4-32.3) hours in the IPC group (p=0.353). INTERPRETATION: There was no benefit from IPC on time to surgery in patients with acute primary malleolar fracture in a cohort with a mean surgical delay less than 24h.